Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung

This litigation, Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung, centers on patent infringement claims brought by Netlist, Inc., an Irvine, California-based operating company specializing in high-performance modular memory subsystems and hybrid memory solutions, against the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung, a global leader in semiconductors and electronics. Netlist accuses Samsung of infringing its memory technology patents with Samsung's DDR4 RDIMMs and DDR4 LRDIMMs, which are high-volume server memory components essential for cloud computing servers and data-intensive applications.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, presided over by Chief District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, specifically involves U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608, which broadly covers memory modules with timing-controlled data paths in distributed data buffers, designed to electrically isolate memory devices for enhanced signal integrity and speed. The case that resulted in the $118 million verdict also included U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912, related to memory module decoders and rank multiplication technology, and U.S. Patent No. 11,093,417, also concerning memory module technology and rank multiplication. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent disputes, known for its experienced patent judges and efficient dockets.

This case is notable as it represents a significant victory for Netlist, culminating in a November 2024 jury award of $118 million in damages against Samsung, with the jury finding willful infringement of the asserted patents. This verdict is part of Netlist's broader "IP war" against major memory manufacturers, having secured multiple substantial jury awards, including a $303 million verdict against Samsung in April 2023 for other patents and a $445 million award against Micron. The validity of the '608 patent has been upheld through inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit in December 2025, demonstrating the patent's robustness. The litigation also stems from a prior terminated Joint Development and License Agreement between Netlist and Samsung due to alleged breaches of supply obligations, further highlighting the intense market competition and intellectual property landscape in the high-growth memory sector for AI and data center technologies.

This case summary outlines the key legal developments and outcomes in the patent infringement litigation of Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung in the Western District of Texas, specifically concerning the U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 ('608 patent).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Complaint Filing & Initial Pleadings (Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:22-cv-00293-JRG):

  • Netlist, Inc. filed a complaint against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in August 2022. The initial complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 ('912 patent). Netlist later amended its complaint to additionally assert infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,093,417 ('417 patent) and 10,268,608 ('608 patent).

• Parallel Declaratory Judgment Action & Counterclaims (District of Delaware):

  • [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") initiated a declaratory judgment action against Netlist, Inc. in the District of Delaware on October 15, 2021, seeking a declaration of non-infringement of certain Netlist patents.
  • Netlist filed an answer on August 22, 2022, asserting counterclaims for infringement against Samsung.
  • On September 12, 2022, Netlist amended its answer to add counterclaims for patent infringement against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.
  • A motion by Netlist to dismiss Samsung's amended complaint or alternatively to transfer was denied by the Delaware court on March 4, 2025.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Specific pre-trial motions to dismiss or for summary judgment for the EDTX 2:22-cv-00293 case related to the '608 patent are not detailed in the available information.
  • However, the '608 patent (along with the '314 patent) is also asserted against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which is currently stayed.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • A Markman hearing took place on April 21, 2026, in a related U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) case brought by Netlist against Samsung, Google LLC, and Super Micro Computer Inc. This hearing was significant for defining patent terms relevant to the ongoing disputes. No specific Markman order for the Eastern District of Texas case (2:22-cv-00293) is explicitly mentioned.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • No specific strategically significant discovery milestones for the EDTX 2:22-cv-00293 case are detailed in the provided information.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • A jury trial for the EDTX 2:22-cv-00293 case, involving the '912, '417, and '608 patents, commenced on November 12, 2024, and concluded on November 22, 2024.
  • The federal jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding that Samsung willfully infringed all three patents ('912, '417, and '608) and awarded Netlist $118 million in damages. The jury also found that none of the patents were invalid.
  • Details on specific post-trial motions (e.g., JMOL, new trial) following the $118 million verdict for this specific case are not yet fully public, but general "post-trial motions" are implied.
  • Note on a separate EDTX case: Netlist previously won a $303 million patent infringement damages award against Samsung in EDTX Case No. 2:21-cv-00463-JRG in April 2023 for other patents. Samsung's post-trial motions in that case were denied on July 24, 2024, finalizing the $303 million award.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Present Posture:

  • The $118 million jury verdict was announced in November 2024.
  • The ultimate disposition of the district court case (2:22-cv-00293) related to the '608 patent may be influenced by ongoing PTAB and Federal Circuit appeals concerning the patent's validity.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and their Effect on Litigation:

  • Samsung IPR (IPR2023-00847): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the '608 patent. Institution of this IPR was granted on December 12, 2023. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) subsequently upheld the validity of the '608 patent in a final written decision in December 2024.
  • Federal Circuit Appeal of Samsung IPR: Samsung appealed the PTAB's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 25-1378). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's ruling upholding the validity of the '608 patent with a per curiam order on December 9, 2025.
  • Supreme Court Petition: Samsung has a 90-day window from the Federal Circuit's December 9, 2025, judgment to file a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Micron IPRs (IPR2022-00237 and IPR2024-00370): Micron Technology, Inc. also challenged the '608 patent in two IPRs. Both IPRs were denied institution by the PTAB. Specifically, IPR2022-00237 was denied on the merits, and IPR2024-00370 was denied institution on July 23, 2024.
  • Ex Parte Reexamination: There is also an active ex parte reexamination of the '608 patent, filed by an anonymous requester, which has been granted by the USPTO.
  • ITC Investigation: The '608 patent is one of six patents Netlist has asserted in a complaint before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro, seeking exclusion and cease and desist orders to block infringing memory products from entering the U.S.

• Newer Litigation (Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:26-cv-00456):

  • Netlist, Inc. filed a new patent infringement case against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas on June 7, 2026. The patents involved in this newest case were not immediately specified in all initial reports.

The plaintiff, Netlist, Inc., is represented by a team of attorneys from several prominent intellectual property litigation firms. The $118 million jury damages award in November 2024 against Samsung for infringement of the '608 patent, as well as the '912 and '417 patents, occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:22-cv-293, not the Western District of Texas.

Here is the counsel of record representing Netlist, Inc.:

Irell & Manella LLP

• Jason Sheasby (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, California (also has offices in Newport Beach, CA, and Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: A nationally recognized trial lawyer, he served as co-lead or lead trial counsel in multiple significant patent infringement victories for Netlist, including the $118 million verdict against Samsung and a prior $303 million verdict against Samsung. He has also secured large verdicts against other major technology companies like Apple and Micron.
• Hong Annita Zhong (Counsel, Co-counsel for PTAB)
  • Firm & Office: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation and contested patent office proceedings, including acting as co-counsel in PTAB proceedings for the '608 patent and securing a $445 million willful infringement verdict for Netlist against Micron.

McKool Smith PC

• Jennifer Truelove (Principal)
  • Firm & Office: McKool Smith PC, Marshall, Texas (also has offices in Austin, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C.).
  • Experience: An accomplished trial lawyer, she was an integral member of the McKool Smith trial teams that secured the $118 million and $303 million patent infringement verdicts for Netlist against Samsung.
• Kevin Burgess (Principal)
  • Firm & Office: McKool Smith PC, Marshall, Texas (also listed in Austin, TX).
  • Experience: Focuses on patent cases and has successfully tried many cases for patentees, including nine-figure verdicts for Netlist (high-performance memory) and other technology companies.
• Samuel Baxter (Former Principal, now retired)
  • Firm & Office: Formerly with McKool Smith PC, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience: A legendary trial lawyer, he was part of the McKool Smith trial team that secured the $303 million patent infringement award for Netlist against Samsung. He retired from McKool Smith in April 2026.

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC

• Richard M. Bemben (Lead Counsel for PTAB)
  • Firm & Office: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: A director and co-chair of the firm's PTAB Practice, he served as lead counsel before the PTAB in successfully upholding Netlist's '608 patent, which was part of the $118 million jury verdict.
• Jonathan M. Lindsay (Co-counsel for PTAB)
  • Firm & Office: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Identified as co-counsel for Netlist in the PTAB proceeding that upheld the '608 patent.

The case information provided in the prompt states "Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung" in the "Texas Western District Court" concerning patent 10268608, which resulted in a $118 million jury damages award in November 2024. However, web searches consistently indicate that the $118 million jury verdict related to U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 (the '608 patent) against Samsung occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, specifically case number 2:22-cv-293, with the verdict announced on November 22, 2024. There is no clear record of a "Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung" case with a $118 million award for the '608 patent in the Western District of Texas. The '608 patent has also been asserted against Micron in the Western District of Texas, but that case is currently stayed.

Therefore, the counsel information below is based on the case Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., case number 2:22-cv-293, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which aligns with the patent and verdict details provided.

Based on available information for Samsung's representation in the related PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings concerning Netlist patents, and general patent litigation practice, the following counsel are likely involved or have been involved in representing Samsung in the district court action, though specific roles (lead, local, of counsel, in-house) for this particular district court case can be difficult to ascertain definitively without direct access to the full district court docket.

Here is the counsel of record representing Samsung based on the most pertinent search results:

Counsel for Defendant Samsung

Baker Botts LLP

• Michael Hawes (Lead Counsel/Appellate Counsel)
  • Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Argued for Samsung (Appellant) in the Federal Circuit regarding PTAB decisions concerning Netlist patents.
• Lori Ding (Appellate Counsel)
  • Firm: Baker Botts LLP (office not specified, but often involved with other Baker Botts attorneys mentioned).
  • Note: Represented Samsung in appellate efforts related to Netlist patents.
• Theodore W. Chandler (Appellate Counsel)
  • Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Represented Samsung in appellate efforts related to Netlist patents.
• Eliot Damon Williams (Appellate Counsel)
  • Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC
  • Note: Represented Samsung in appellate efforts related to Netlist patents.
• Pilseon Yoo (Appellate Counsel)
  • Firm: Baker Botts LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Represented Samsung in appellate efforts related to Netlist patents.

While these attorneys are confirmed to have represented Samsung in appellate and PTAB proceedings, they are highly likely to have been involved in the underlying district court litigation (or supervising it) that led to the Federal Circuit appeals. Direct Eastern District of Texas counsel information for Samsung in the 2:22-cv-293 case was not explicitly detailed in the publicly available summaries for Samsung's team, unlike the extensive information provided for Netlist's counsel (McKool Smith and Irell & Manella). Without direct PACER access to the docket for case 2:22-cv-293 for Samsung's specific appearances, it is difficult to definitively assign roles like "lead counsel" or "local counsel" for the district court phase to these individuals or to identify additional local counsel if used.The case information provided in the prompt refers to "Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung" in the "Texas Western District Court" concerning patent 10268608, which resulted in a $118 million jury damages award in November 2024. However, the available public records and news consistently indicate that the $118 million jury verdict related to U.S. Patent No. 10,268,608 (the '608 patent) against Samsung occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under case number 2:22-cv-293, with the verdict announced on November 22, 2024.

No specific "Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung" case with a $118 million award for the '608 patent has been identified in the Western District of Texas. While the '608 patent is asserted against Micron in a separate case in the Western District of Texas, that case is currently stayed.

Therefore, the counsel information below is based on the Eastern District of Texas case, Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., case number 2:22-cv-293, which aligns with the patent and verdict details provided in the prompt's context.

Based on available information regarding Samsung's representation in related PTAB proceedings and Federal Circuit appeals concerning Netlist patents, the following attorneys from Baker Botts LLP have represented Samsung:

Counsel for Defendant(s): Samsung

Baker Botts LLP

• Michael Hawes
  • Role: Appellate Counsel (likely involved in underlying district court strategy)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Argued for Samsung (Appellant) in the Federal Circuit regarding PTAB decisions concerning Netlist patents.
• Lori Ding
  • Role: Appellate Counsel (likely involved in underlying district court strategy)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP (office not explicitly stated in snippets for this counsel, but associated with other Baker Botts attorneys).
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in appellate efforts related to Netlist patents.
• Theodore W. Chandler
  • Role: Appellate Counsel (likely involved in underlying district court strategy)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in appellate efforts related to Netlist patents.
• Eliot Damon Williams
  • Role: Appellate Counsel (likely involved in underlying district court strategy)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in appellate efforts related to Netlist patents.
• Pilseon Yoo
  • Role: Appellate Counsel (likely involved in underlying district court strategy)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in appellate efforts related to Netlist patents.

While these attorneys are confirmed to have represented Samsung in appeals and PTAB challenges related to Netlist's patents, specific docket entries detailing their precise roles (e.g., lead trial counsel, local counsel, or of counsel) for the district court trial (case 2:22-cv-293) were not explicitly available in the search results. Their involvement at the appellate level strongly suggests a significant role in the overall litigation strategy.